[dmitriv]

First comment does not sound constructive - are you interested in my opinion on (n)vim?

I am not a legal, so can't comment on legal things. However, I have already responded elsewhere here that this feature has nothing to do with licensing or ownership and was added for those that want the attribution. I understand the desire to see anything Microsoft as bad and evil, but we are really just trying to make a better experience.

I'll respond to the third one, thanks!

[jdenning]

Perhaps next time you should consult with legal before asserting co-authorship on end users’ code. The appended comment was not “edited with VS code” or “sent from VS code”, it was “co-authored by Copilot”. You do understand that there are legal implications to claims of authorship, right?

[PinkSheep]

To be honest, this question should be directed at the person who made the change/commit:

> cwebster-99 / Courtney Webster / Product Manager at @microsoft working on VS Code and GitHub Copilot!

>> No description provided.

[albedoa]

It was pretty obvious from your first comment that you were going to get creative with the definition of "constructive".

> are you interested in my opinion on (n)vim?

The first comment is three short lines. One of them is the extremely reasonable and relevant question of where else this has happened in VSCode.

And you think that the commenter is wondering about your opinion on (n)vim? That is what you think they are interested in?

Could you just, like, ignore the signature if it is distracting you from the only other line that has a question in it?

[maccard]

Comments like this are why developers don’t engage directly. The first link is “just asking questions” and implying that the project is rotten. He’s not being “creative” he’s just not engaging in bait.

[HDThoreaun]

They’ve done a commendable job responding. Please show some respect when people put themselves in vulnerable situations, otherwise the whole “devs respond on HN” thing will cease to happen.